Law of tort (British law)

Law of tort :

Tort : civil wrong, imposing obligations . It’s a voluntary act.

Exemple : nuisance , diffamation, trespass (to land, to goods, to the persons) , negligence

In this course : tort of negligence  

Negligence: 4 general requirements. Claimant must show :

• Duty of care
• Breach of duty
• Causation
• Loss not too ‘remote’

somebody triggers an insulte : procedure under civil law and tort law.

what will happen if the law of tort wouldn’t exist ? no control (of the medical professions, of those who print untruth, …)

Law of tort : private law, harm outside of a contract , individual can receive compensation under a harm they suffered from another person, control the behavior of people  ( people drive carefully because of the law of tort)

Other torts :

Occupiers liability

- Occupiers Liability Act 1957 : Duty to lawful visitors (employees, customers, passengers, inspectors)

- Occupiers Liability Act 1984 : Duty to unlawful visitors (trespassers)

• Duty on those managing the premises to take reasonable care (similar to negligence)  

• Lawful visitors

• Cunningham v Reading FC (1991)

• Reading FC liable for failing to maintain its terraces when fans used loose masonry to throw at police officers, as known that such acts could be committed
• facts : the police officer was a lawful visitor, it was the duty to the club to manage the terraces so people wouldn’t get hurt

• Portsmouth Youth Activities v Poppleton (2008)

• Owner of indoor climbing wall not liable when young adult attempted to jump from one wall to the other, as climbers were told not to jump and matting provided wasn’t intended to protect against such injuries

• Unlawful visitors
• British Railways Board v Herrington (1972) HL

• Failure by British Rail to stop a six year old child going onto the railway track when drivers had reported trespassers and the cost of fixing the fence was small

• Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003) HL

• The council, as owner of a public park, was not liable for failing to put up additional signs to those in place prohibiting swimming and warning that it was dangerous. The claimant had dived in shallow water and was paralysed when hitting his head on a rocky outcrop. This was an obvious risk.
• The duty doesn’t extend to obvious risk.

• Nuisance

Two types : public and private

• Unreasonable interference by a nearby occupier of land with another person’s use and enjoyment of their land
• Miller v Jackson (1977)

• Cricket balls regularly entering a neighbour’s garden from a cricket club next door amounted to a nuisance, the club said that they were here first but they still have a duty of care.

• Leakey v The National Trust (1980)

• National Trust, as neighbor, was liable for debris entering the claimant’s land at the bottom of a hill, as the claimant had told the Trust of landslips in periods of drought

Tort of Negligence (most common)

I. Duty of care

Duty of care : starting point. Claimant must show that he own a duty of care.

• Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) , decision of House of Lords

• Manufacturer left remains of snail in ginger beer bottle causing illness to consumer. The victim was taking a beer that her friend gave her in a bar she was hill after that. She didn’t have a contrat so she couldn’t suit the seller of beer, she didn’t buy it but suffer a harm. Who is responsible for the harm? The coffee owner? The manufacturer?
• Duty of care owed to consumers of manufacturers’ products. The two parties have never met.
• Duty based on ‘neighbour’ principle: A person must take care to those persons likely to be reasonably foreseeably affected by their acts or omissions. It doesn’t apply only to manufacturers.

Duty of care : curent position

Duty of care to avoid a financial harm, does investors should have a duty of care in their favor?

Duty is constantly evolving

• Caparo v Dickman (1990) : Duty of care to avoid a financial harm, does investors should have a duty of care in their favor?

Duty based on three things, the reasonable foresight on its own isn’t sufficient :  

1 - Reasonable foresight , Hayley v LEB (1965)

• LEB workmen let along handled tool propped up against barrier six inches off the ground around pavement works. Blind person tripped over tool and fell in a hole

• Reasonably foreseeable for blind people as well as able bodied people to use pavements.   No he could use to detect the hole.
• What was his injury?

2 - Close and proximate relationship (‘neighbourhood’) = ‘legal closeness’  

• Bourhill v Young (1943) : pregnant woman not in danger of harm from driver’s collision on other side of tram. On a side of a tram there was an accident concerning a moto cycle, a pregnant woman suffered a miscarriage by seing the accident, she per suit the motorcyclist. The court denied the claim of the woman, there is no close and proximate relation between them.
• Dorset Yacht v Home Office (1970) : boats in harbour were very close to camp from where the borstal boys escaped. Victims own boats that were damage. The duty of care applied.

3 - Fair and reasonable to impose a duty (relevant when it comes to the liability of the police)

• Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989): no duty owed by police to mother of murdered daughter in failing to detect and detain the perpetrator after 13 earlier murders  
• Reeves v Commissioner of Police (1998): police placed a prisoner in cell with known suicidal tendencies under a duty to take reasonable steps for preventing him committing suicide (by not leaving cell hatch open by which he could hang himself).
• Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yoorkshire Police (2018): police officer owed duty of care to elderly pedestrian when making an arrest in the high street and a scuffle ensued. The police decided to arrest a drug dealer in the hight street instead of inside a book shop. As soon has the arrestation began it created a agitation in the street. The victim is an elderly pedestrian, she was harm because of this arrest. The police should have under control the situation , they should have been aware that something could go wrong when he decided to make the arrestation a busy hight street.

What type of harm/loss is covered ?

• Physical harm : yes

• Damage to property : yes

Difference between consequential economic loss and pure economic loss is a matter of policy.  The producer protect themselves thanks to assurance not thanks to law of tort when it comes to pure economic loss.

...